Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If the situation is life-threatening, how would a restraining order prevent it?


Imagine a person who is likely to kill/harm you in a fit of passion.

If the harasser could get carried away in an argument and start beating, but didn't leave the house planning to kill, then restraining orders can limit the time the harasser is around you and limit the time before they 'blow their cool'. When the harasser breaks the restraining order and comes near you "just to talk, I promise", you can get the police involved straight away, and the harasser can be hauled off before they lose their cool, and things escalate.


So you get a restraining order and when they approach you just to talk anyway and you call the cops to come arrest them because they were not following the restraining order then they go into the same murderous rage. I am really not seeing how it is helpful, it would be illegal for them to harass you anyway.


Generally (yes there are cases of abuse-of-the-system) these temporary restraining orders are the result of domestic violence situations. The abuser is given a restraining order, and in conjunction the police provide some extra level of protection if it is a case of "(s)he may come back". It is a legal way of allowing the police to diffuse a situation before it gets worse - because there would otherwise be no good way to stop an offender from doing it again until an assault is in progress. It's a relatively effective way of the legal system saying "look, you got us involved, now we are requiring you to take a few days to calm down, and we'll deal with it after cooler heads are present".

A full restraining order is different.


In some places, restraining orders can be a barrier to things like purchasing a gun. But generally speaking, restraining orders alone aren't enough to prevent life-threatening situations.


Are there any jurisdictions where it is a barrier to, say, purchasing a knife? I doubt it. Again, if I thought my life was in danger, a restraining order would not be sought.


Oh I agree with you. If I thought someone might actually try to kill me (not just hurt me), a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead. But I understand that to be the theory.


> I'd go into hiding instead.

This person knows where you live, where you work, who all your friends are, your family.

Yeah, right. You are expected to quit your job, take your kids out of school (who are possibly also his kids), move hundreds of miles away, and possibly still not get away because they are following you around. On a whim. Oh, and never contact your friends and family again, they can be watching.


a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead

Not an option for some people. You need savings and cash while hiding. What if you have children, can you just pull them out of school (say), while you hide? How long would you hide for? 5 years?


If you have kids together, the restraining order is going to be very limited due to custody issues. A no contact order would be silly in that case.


No necessarily, the custody issues might be solved. e.g. what if a couple (with kids) break up due to the husband beating the wife and kids. Father gets no custody and there is a restraining order to prevent him contacting them (y'know so he doesn't beat them again).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: